Hello, I'm trying to find info on the origin of the Saros Series numbering used by Robert Jansky, Bernadette Brady and others.
This upcoming solar eclipse on October 2 is SS 8 South, or Saros 144 using the van den Bergh number.
Both Jansky and Brady give the date SS 8 South started as April 1, 1718 at 10 Aries, but the first eclipse in the Saros 144 series is given as April 11, 1736, one eclipse later. Any ideas as to why this discrepancy?
I’ve checked some other Saros series start dates given in Brady’s Predictive Astrology against the van den Bergh Saros series numbers but haven’t found other discrepancies.
Thanks in anticipation

Hello Juli,

The NASA website gives Apr 11, 1736 as the first eclipse of the Saros 144.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros144.html

You will find the Oct 2, 2024 Eclipse in the list with the First one Apr, 11, 1736 and the last one May 5, 2980.

The earliest discovered historical record of what is known as the Saros is by Chaldean (neo-Babylonian) astronomers in the last several centuries BCE. It was later known to Hipparchus, Pliny and Ptolemy. A Babylonian astronomer realized that eclipses come in cycles that are 6,585 days long.
The numbering system used for the Saros series was introduced by the Dutch Astronomer G. van den Bergh in his book 'Periodicity and Variation of Solar (and Lunar) Eclipses' in 1955.

Ouranos

Hi Juli

I have once experienced the same discrepancy regarding the first eclipse in a Saros Series. Bernadette said one thing in her book "Predictive Astrology", and Nasa said another thing in their catalogue, also with one eclipses difference.

I wrote to Bernadette and asked about the difference, and her answer was, that when she wrote her book many years ago, there were not so precise tables, as there is now.

Best wishes
Annemette

Rudolf Steiner said that the Lunar Nodes are sensitive points or entrance doors of the astral world for each individual depending on the planets contacted. We become more sensitive to the influence of the planets and we should pay special attention to our dreams or other subconscious influences that prevail at that time.
Since they are 'security valves' so to speak, Elisabeth Vreede describes the pattern a Saros cycle leaves as footprints of entities walking from one pole to another.
I remember during my first Nodal return around the age of 18-19 years old, I had a dream in color where I was in a church and I heard the song 'Turn, Turn, Turn' (To Everything There is a Season) by The Byrds sang by a choir and this song evokes collective memories of the 60's. Another thing that striked me was that the colors in my dream were translucent with purple hues that were nicer than the reality. Now, I have the South Node conjunct Jupiter relating to purple.
Another interesting fact is that this song was first released in 1962 during my half Nodal return by a group called 'The Limeliters' as 'To Everything There is a Season'
The church, purple, choir, birds (freedom). Everything looks like a visit of Jupiterian entities.

Because of the rotation of the Earth, the first return Nodal return is about 1/3 of its original position in the world ~18 years. The 2nd cycle around the age of ~37, the return is about 2/3 of its original position and the third one around the age of ~54, the cycle comes back to its original position on Earth. Steiner also said that up to the first Saturn return (1 1/2 Nodal cycle), people in our life are entities of the past, people with whom we established a relationship in previous incarnations. Once our incarnation is established (Saturn return) we must look forward to build something new in this lifetime with or without the entities of the past.

Annepmet wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 7:11 am Hi Juli

I have once experienced the same discrepancy regarding the first eclipse in a Saros Series. Bernadette said one thing in her book "Predictive Astrology", and Nasa said another thing in their catalogue, also with one eclipses difference.

I wrote to Bernadette and asked about the difference, and her answer was, that when she wrote her book many years ago, there were not so precise tables, as there is now.

Best wishes
Annemette

Thanks Annemette,
I sent a msg to her too but haven't had a reply. I'll keep looking for source material pre van den Bergh.

Ouranos wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2024 2:34 am Hello Juli,

The NASA website gives Apr 11, 1736 as the first eclipse of the Saros 144.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros144.html

You will find the Oct 2, 2024 Eclipse in the list with the First one Apr, 11, 1736 and the last one May 5, 2980.

The earliest discovered historical record of what is known as the Saros is by Chaldean (neo-Babylonian) astronomers in the last several centuries BCE. It was later known to Hipparchus, Pliny and Ptolemy. A Babylonian astronomer realized that eclipses come in cycles that are 6,585 days long.
The numbering system used for the Saros series was introduced by the Dutch Astronomer G. van den Bergh in his book 'Periodicity and Variation of Solar (and Lunar) Eclipses' in 1955.

Ouranos

Thanks Ouranos,
I already have this information but it doesn't explain the discrepancy. I'm looking for the origin of the SS N° N/S system.

Juli wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:24 am ... I'm looking for the origin of the SS N° N/S system.

Hi Juli,

The first reference to this eclipse family numbering system that I, like yourself and many others here, encountered is Robert Carl Jansky’s Interpreting the Eclipses, published by Astro Computing Services in 1979. Bernadette Brady later expanded on it in The Eagle and the Lark, published by Samuel Weiser Inc. in 1992.

As I recall, Jansky doesn’t explicitly explain or cite the origin of the system he uses within the text, nor does he claim to have invented it. Yet for all I know he may have. The key to tracing its origin might lie in Jansky’s bibliography, but tracking down the exact reference would require considerable effort, as many of the sources he lists are likely out of print. If you're inclined to pursue this, I would suggest looking through his bibliography for clues. I am assuming you have a copy.

To research these old books, reach out to astrological libraries that maintain collections of rare and out-of-print texts. One starting point could be the Caeli Institute, where Dr. Jenn Zahrt is the executive director: [https://caeli.institute](https://caeli.institute).

While much of this may be familiar to you, I mention it for the benefit of the forum readers.
Van den Bergh’s system, as detailed in his 1955 publication *Periodicity and Variation of Solar (and Lunar) Eclipses*, revolutionized eclipse cataloging by grouping eclipses into families based on physical characteristics, moving beyond the traditional Saros cycle. His Eclipse Canon system introduced a more refined method for tracking eclipses and their variations over time.

As mentioned earlier, Babylonian astronomers discovered the saros cycle around the 7th or 8th century B.C. They were keen observers and kept meticulous records of astronomical events for hundreds of years on clay tablets. Unfortunately, so few records survive from before 750 BC, or so.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-n ... ros-cycle/
That is as per Fred Espenak, a retired NASA astronomer

You can learn more by checking 'Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia' by Hunger and Pingree here
https://archive.org/details/astralscien ... gree_635_E

Or try with Artificial Intelligence (Co-Pilot, Gemini, Chat GPT etc)

Oddly (fortuitiously, randomly) I think I've (possibly - I make mistakes!) located the source of the error.
I'd been interested in Juli's inquiry as every eclipse season I try to refresh some learning about eclipses, and especially as I'd encountered the error myself, when I'd looked up the solar Saros series 144. I realized that the originating eclipse data that Bernadette Brady cited in a Zyntara article was in error, according to the NASA eclipse pages - there was no solar eclipse on April 1, 1718, and the Saros 144 solar eclipse originated on April 11, 1736.
(Handy web page on NASA's site to cross-check 18th century eclipses: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE1701-1800.html)
The replies to Juli's inquiry were informative reading and after AJ's reply, I thought to look for a copy of The Canon of Eclipses (1887) by von Oppolzer. It was the data in Canon of Eclipses that van den Bergh used and reorganized into his Saros numbering system, which also coordinates with the Inex eclipse cycle.

"The numbering system used for the Saros series was introduced by the Dutch Astronomer G. van den Bergh in his book Periodicity and Variation of Solar (and Lunar) Eclipses (Tjeenk Willink, Haarlem, Netherlands, 1955). He placed all 8,000 solar eclipses in von Oppolzer's Canon der Finsternisse (1887) into a large two-dimensional matrix." - NASA website, https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

Happily, It turns out that there's a free copy online of Von Oppolzer's The Canon of Eclipses, on archive.org, and the error in question is there, p 280.
https://archive.org/details/canonofecli ... ew=theater
How the data went from van den Bergh to Jansky (if that's indeed the way it was transmitted), I've not found anything about that. It also could have been that Jansky was drawing directly from von Oppolzer.
The one thing about Jansky/Brady's numbering system is that it does differentiate clearly whether it's a North Node eclipse or a South Node eclipse, so the numbering system itself is a bit less arbitrary/abstract. But I still can't grasp how their numbering for eclipse families works, at all, even after reading an article that Bernadette wrote about eclipses online. http://www.bernadettebrady.com/Pdfs/SarosCycles.pdf
I don't have my books any longer, so I can't check B Brady's books. There is probably more there.
(There are quite a few ways to organize eclipses, btw. But now I understand more about the van den Bergh contribution- I always wondered what those strange-looking wavy graphics were on the NASA website! It's the Saros-Inex Panorama.)
So the April 1st, 1718 event is a New Moon, not an eclipse. I have no idea about how the error occurred, whether the formula were a tiny bit off and trapped a new moon as a solar eclipse? Von Oppolzer's book is all about generating eclipse data through algebraic computations, not observation. But I haven't reviewed trig for far too long and even if I had, it's far too complex for me. I realized as I was looking at the tables in von Oppolzer that I don't even understand specifically how the mathematical geometry involved in an eclipse is defined, what the criteria are. Perhaps others can shed some light.
Mystery (perhaps) solved, at least partially. After all this, I would like to get a copy of Jansky's book and read it someday.
Cheers,
Omphalos

What a fantastic bit of sleuthing, Omphalos! Your deep dive into the error and the fascinating connections between von Oppolzer, van den Bergh, and Jansky is incredibly impressive. It's amazing how these historical and astronomical details intersect, and your methodical approach has shed light on the source of confusion. The discovery that the April 1, 1718 event was indeed just a New Moon, and not an eclipse, is a great find, and the fact that you've tracked down the error all the way to page 280 of von Oppolzer’s *Canon of Eclipses* is truly commendable. You've certainly enriched this discussion, and like you, I'm left with a greater appreciation for the complexities of eclipse cycles and numbering systems. Thank you for sharing such thoughtful research!

Thanks, AJ, that was fun, really. Very Mercury-Sun-Ketu in sidereal Virgo, if you ask me. With due thanks to the Internet Archive, for making such an esoteric publication available.
I found this great, in-depth piece about Oppolzer, who he was and how the Canon of Eclipses was produced. (Much better than the Wikipedia bio.)
https://www.space.com/eclipses-canon-or ... mr-eclipse
It turns out there were five people working under von Oppolzer to produce the Canon of Eclipses, and each was paid a guilder apiece (about what would pay for a lunch) for each eclipse entry. So perhaps someone slipped in a plain New Moon under Oppolzer's nose, for the money? Or perhaps it was a fatigued human calculator.
In any case, the Universe is now minus one small error, the correction of which will exist evermore in the Skyscript Forum, like a needle in a haystack.
Good luck, Juli, finding the answers to the rest of your question, about where and from what sources Jansky developed his eclipse numbering system. I look foward to hearing about that.
In any case, now for the eclipse!
Cheers,
Omphalos

hi omphalos,

i too would like to thank you for sharing this fascinating bit of research! it seems the idea of mercury ketu being very good at research related matters holds up! i am on holidays at present, but couldn’t resist complimenting you as well for your work here.. thanks..